Legal Commentary

Carissa raises some good points about the different types of conference formats. I wanted to add some comments here.

First, another conference format to consider is the roundtable or moderated discussion, in which there are no prepared papers or remarks, but an open-ended (and hopefully freewheeling) conversation among the panelists, usually with a moderator guiding the proceedings. I actually believe this is the most effective format for having a coherent, lively thematic substantive discussion. Even if all the papers are good and even if they manage to fit together, there is always something a bit boring about the typical panel: 3-4 presentations of 20 minutes, with people sitting and listening to one another for 60 out of 80 minutes, then about 10-15 minutes of Q&A. Not that interesting. Of course, this format serves a different purpose--it is about an overall substantive presentation, not about honing individual work.

Second, a panel format might indeed be helpful for brand-new projects that are at three-quarters baked. If I am in the early stages of a project, where I have done most of the research and have a rough idea of the arguments I want to make, I can put together a pretty good 15/20-minute presentation for a panel. I have used panel presentations (or faculty workshop presentations) as, essentially, a broad first draft of my paper. The effectiveness of this depends on how an individual author works--if your research and organize first, then throw your ideas down on paper, this could work. I will be doing something like this for a panel at SEALS.

Third, I do not consider practicing in the hotel room an act of vanity. For me, it is an act of time-keeping. I never know how much material I have and how long I am going to go unless and until I run through the paper. That is the only way I can know if I am going to be able to stay within the 20-minute time limits. The drawback, I have found, is that it comes out a bit more rehearsed than, for example, a classroom lecture.